CONTROLLING or managing the narrative that originates from the pulpit has been a challenge for the State for several decades. Very often, radical preachers have misused the mosque and madrasa to spread hate speeches, sectarian views and defy state orders. Pakistan’s history is replete with examples where extremist clerics have taken on the state, with the Lal Masjid fiasco perhaps the most serious episode of its kind.
In recent days, the TLP’s problematic and violent outbursts sparked a state crackdown, leading to the party’s ban. However, questions had been arising about the more than 400 mosques and madrassas run by the TLP in Punjab. It was initially announced that the Auqaf department would manage the institutions. But after opposition from senior Barelvi clerics, who feared that the state might give control of the mosques to other sects, the Punjab government decided to hand over the administration of the religious places to “moderate” clerics led by Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman. The Punjab administration has also announced monthly stipends for imams of the province’s over 65,000 mosques.
These measures raise questions about the extent to which the state should exercise control over religious institutions and where the line should be drawn to preserve individual religious freedoms. In other Muslim states, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkiye, the state is heavily involved in the appointment and supervision of imams, particularly Friday prayer leaders, while the content of Friday sermons is also scrutinized.
Can similar models be followed in Pakistan? In this country, attempts have also been made to regulate mosques. For example, in the 1960s laws were passed to ensure that mosque loudspeakers were only used for azan and Friday sermons. In more recent decades, especially after the rise of religiously inspired militancy in the country, the State resolved through the PAN to register and regulate madrassas. However, problems have persisted, as demonstrated by the TLP phenomenon and the activities of sectarian groups.
It is clear that state supervision of religious institutions is needed, but with some guardrails. For example, there must be clearly defined areas that require state intervention and action against preachers who violate the SOPs. This includes hate speech, particularly language that demonizes any religion, sect or community, as well as calls for violence and insurrection against the State. In this sense, the State has often failed to act against clerics who have promoted and incited violence, and has only taken action after the damage has already been done.
Beyond these guidelines, the state should not regulate religious rituals or penalize imams who deviate from the official line on any particular issue, unless they promote violence or hate speech. A balance needs to be struck between maintaining order and suppressing hate speech and respecting individual freedoms.
Published in Dawn, October 31, 2025
